read_artifact

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations, and the description provides minimal behavioral info: only that it reads (non-destructive). No mention of error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens for missing paths.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, space could have been used to add one more clarifying sentence without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and 3 parameters, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what an artifact is, return format, or potential errors, leaving the agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low (33%), and the description adds little beyond the schema. The 'path' parameter lacks any description in both schema and tool description. No explanation of max_chars.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'PAIDEIA course artifact', with the qualifier 'by relative path'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_artifacts and write_artifact.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_artifacts to discover artifacts). The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.